Writers’ Workshops: A Strategy for Developing Indigenous Writers

Diana Dahlin WeberDiane WrogeJoan Bomberger YoderSIL International

Abstract

This
paper discusses how writers’ workshops can be used to develop
writers from indigenous language groups. It considers how such
workshops fit into the greater context of a community literacy
program, and describes both the practical and instructional
components of workshop design. Of particular importance is the
principle of teaching writing as a process. Examples from Papua New
Guinea demonstrate the role writers’ workshops play in developing
indigenous orthographies and materials that contribute to culturally
relevant educational curricula. Finally, the merits and weaknesses of
such training are discussed, and questions for further research are
raised.

1. INTRODUCTION. This
paper describes the process of developing indigenous writers in
lesser-known and marginalized languages through the use of writers’
workshops. It is based on the authors’ involvement in dozens of
workshops from countries in South America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and
the largest Melanesian South Pacific nation, Papua New Guinea. These
workshops occurred in the context of indigenous language literacy
programs with a variety of purposes: adult programs focused on
personal and community needs and celebrating the local culture,
programs motivated by transition to a language of wider
communication, and formal bilingual and multilingual programs for
children.

Following a brief
overview of terminology and the origins of indigenous language
writers’ workshops, the relationship of such workshops to various
components of literacy and language development programs is
considered. Logistical and instructional issues are then discussed,
with a focus on teaching writing as a process. Examples from Papua
New Guinea describe how workshops have been used to develop
orthographies and train writers for hundreds of indigenous languages.
Finally, the merits, difficulties, and weaknesses of writers’
workshops are considered, and questions and topics needing further
research are identified.

1.1 TERMINOLOGY.
“Indigenous,”
“minority,” “local,” “mother tongue,” and “vernacular”
have all been used to refer to a language spoken by a community which
is not a language of power in the region where the community is
located. “Heritage” is a term often used in North America in an
ESL (English as a second language) setting to describe immigrants’
first language. This paper uses the terms “indigenous,”
“minority,” and “mother tongue” interchangeably.

1.2 WRITERS’ WORKSHOPS FOR INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES: THE BEGINNINGS.
Sonia Nieto (2002), when writing about multicultural education,
encouraged educators to treat students’ cultural and linguistic
conditions not as deficits, but as talents and strengths. This
approach was based on the most fundamental assumption—that we all
bring important experiences and insights to the educational
enterprise (2002:167). If teachers and literacy workers were to use
the words
and worlds
(Freire 1970) of the learners, “their experiences, how they express
those experiences (in whatever language they happen to use), and the
social and cultural action embedded in their lives,” (Nieto
2002:165) the resultant writing would be far richer and more “real”
than writing more theoretical materials about the academic curriculum
and social problems. Indigenous writers’ workshops are one way to
provide an opportunity to express these words
and worlds.

Diana
Weber’s first experiences with writers’ workshops were in the
early 1970s. She and her husband David lived in central Peru and had
recently begun learning a Quechua language. As with other Quechua
languages, little if anything had been published for the 60–80,000
speakers. Since the Peruvian Ministry of Education was becoming
involved in bilingual education in both the Amazon and the Andes, the
Webers wanted to have materials ready for the day when Huallaga
Quechua would be part of the national bilingual program. Since they
would never be “native” speakers of the language, they needed to
help develop writers within the community. Just how to do it on the
scale needed was perplexing. Help came from Mexico, where Margaret
Wendell (1982) had just published her book Bootstrap
literature: Preliterate societies do it themselves,
and had developed a program of “Writers’ Workshops.”

SIL International, an
International Non-Government Organization (INGO), was one of the
first to use the term, specifically to develop writers in newly
literate communities. LinguaLinks (SIL 2003) defines writers’
workshops as seminars to help people write material in their own
language. The specific goal is to develop writers through instruction
and modeling. Participants learn how to write and edit materials, and
then actually produce simple books for distribution. Over time,
writers’ workshops were conducted for many of the Peruvian
indigenous languages, resulting in hundreds of titles. Many of them
were mimeographed, while others were silk-screened.

In the mid-nineties
Weber returned to the United States and began to hear of writers’
workshops as a crucial element in classrooms using the whole-language
approach. The writers’ workshop in formal education in the States
was described as a way to organize writing instruction that included
a mini-lesson, time for students to write, individual and group
conferences, and whole-class sharing. The structure of the early SIL
writers’ workshops was surprisingly similar to that of its
stateside cousin. However, the indigenous writers were given much
more direct instruction, and their work was edited by linguists or
language specialists. Whether the two types of writers’ workshops
were independent developments or cross-fertilized is not as
interesting as the fact that two very distinct cultural settings
employed a similar format. As those who work with indigenous
communities continue to develop a learner-centered model of writers’
workshops, many more eager writers may emerge. This model is centered
on respect for the participant and his or her experience. By writing,
recording, and sharing their worlds of knowledge, indigenous
communities have the potential to join the wise educators on the
endangered planet.

2. WRITERS’ WORKSHOPS: THEIR CONTEXT AND IMPLEMENTATION.

2.1 THE
CONTEXT: LITERACY AND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS.
The topic of indigenous writers’ workshops presumes a motivation
for reading and writing the mother tongue. Many indigenous language
groups, however, are more desirous of acquiring literacy skills in a
wider language of education and power to help them function and get
ahead in their daily life. Furthermore, they are not used to seeing
their language in print and therefore may even doubt that it can be
written. An inadequate orthography can reinforce this doubt. Speakers
may conclude that their language is too difficult to write,
especially if previous efforts by expatriate linguists and others
(such as missionaries) to devise an orthography and produce materials
resulted in unreadable products. If published materials in their
language are available and readable, they are often few and limited
to topics such as health or religion.

Susan Malone (n.d.)
stated that community mobilization activities are the first step for
developing a successful community literacy program for a minority
language group. Following sufficient preliminary linguistic and
sociolinguistic research, community meetings can be held to discern
the speakers’ attitudes towards having their language developed and
written, and how this might fit with their needs, desires, and
strengths. Types of programs and materials, who should participate,
and many other questions can be discussed at this stage. The
community should also identify what human and material resources it
can contribute to the program, and what resources it needs to seek
from outside the community.

Key leaders and
stakeholders within and without the community should be given the
opportunity to voice their opinions and provide input into program
design. Those facilitating the interviews, discussions, surveys, and
assessments need to provide sufficient information so that the
community and its leaders can control the program’s decision-making
from its inception. The resulting program design could center on
literacy for economic growth, functional literacy, critical literacy,
health-based literacy, agro-based literacy, or literacy for writing.

Teaching people to read
without having a sufficient supply of materials has been compared to
teaching people to swim and then giving them a bathtub. Sustainable
mother-tongue literacy requires not only a large supply of reading
materials, but a steady stream of new items as well. Writers’
workshops, if effective, can develop a corps of writers who will
produce this ongoing supply of materials. Repeatedly the story is
heard of people who have been through basic literacy instruction and
have read all that is available in their language. Some of these
readers progress to a language of wider communication, thus
continuing to use their skills in a second or third language. But
others fall back into semiliteracy or functional nonliteracy.

2.2 IMPLEMENTING
WRITERS’ WORKSHOPS: LOGISTICAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS.
Planning the logistical and practical aspects of writers’ workshops
involves a number of facets common to workshop planning generally.
These include the selection of participants, venue, transportation
needs, scheduling, physical needs such as food and other services,
supplies, and many other details. In one postworkshop debriefing
session, local facilitators spent much time discussing the merits and
deficiencies of the food service, including a lengthy discussion of
problems related to the firewood supply. While it may seem important
to keep a workshop’s goals in focus, these practical matters demand
their share of attention.

If the venue is in the
participants’ home area, costs are reduced, as they can live at
home and do not need much money for traveling. The workshop can
provide a tea break, and possibly a meal, but the potential also
exists for no meal service. This is not guaranteed, however, as
workshops held in regions suffering from a food shortage may provide
a meal to encourage and enable participants to function more
comfortably and effectively. A local venue may also lack the
infrastructure and amenities that are available at a more centralized
location, whether in a more urban, developed area or at a regional
office or center. Such facilities can be advantageous due to
convenient access to food, supplies, water, electricity, production
equipment, and furnished classrooms with blackboards.

When a region or country
is involved in armed conflict or is suffering from other types of
insecurity such as a bandits, both the choice of venue and travel
routes are affected. This requires important information gathering,
risk assessment, and contingency planning should changes need to be
made at the last minute. Particularly in these stressed situations,
logistical challenges raise questions of viability. An imbalance in
program ownership can also be created if a program goal cannot be
implemented without significant input and resources from outside
agencies and facilitators.

2.3 THE INSTRUCTIONAL PROCESS.

2.3.1 LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION.
The language of instruction involves the language that workshop
facilitators and instructors use orally, and the language used for
printed instructional materials such as presentation notes and
handouts. Most writers’ workshop instructional materials are
designed to be used by more than one language group. They are often
first written in a major language such as French or English, and then
possibly translated into a regional language of wider communication,
such as Swahili. Sometimes the materials are printed in diglot or
even triglot to maximize their potential use.

Whether a workshop is
held for a single language or for several languages affects the
language of instruction. Obviously the latter requires the use of a
language of wider communication. The participants’ languages can
still be used for tutoring and discussion as they break into small
groups arranged according to language.

A single language
workshop theoretically provides an opportunity for course content and
instruction to be in that language. Course instructors from the same
language group as the participants and outside instructors fluent in
that language can lead sessions using the mother tongue. However, as
translating an entire course for one language group is often an
unreachable goal, an alternative is to translate the materials’
main headings. The instructor can study the content written in the
language of wider communication, and then make some notes and do his
or her presentation in the mother tongue.

2.3.2 CURRICULUM AND TOPICS. Preliminary
surveys, questionnaires, and assessments in the language community
and among potential workshop participants sensitize the language
speakers to the idea of writing their language, and provide
information about what types of materials they would like to write
and see written. Once a workshop begins, the initial sessions also
give an opportunity for participants to reflect on what they would
like to learn and accomplish during the workshop.

The
writers’ workshop curriculum (Writers’
workshop manual,
2000) that Joan Yoder used with various groups in eastern Africa
evolved over several decades of SIL involvement with language groups
throughout the African continent. Yoder and others revised this
material into two levels, introductory and intermediate. Although it
was gradually informed and shaped by local communities and workshop
participants, in the early years its content was heavily controlled
by expatriate staff. However, as members of language communities
became trained in linguistics and literacy, and became workshop
instructors and directors, they further adapted the material to their
own cultural needs and preferences.

The
first workshop, considered an introductory writers’ workshop,
usually produced a book of folk stories. These stories included
subgenres such as origin and “why” stories (Figure 1), and series
of stories about favorite human and animal heroes and characters.
Topics covered in the workshop included what makes a good story, good
writing, descriptive writing, punctuation, revising and editing,
working with an artist, and ideas for further materials. Since folk
stories are familiar material, the workshop emphasized the
development and practice of technical skills.

The second workshop
involved five different types of writing: personal experience,
procedural, persuasive, informative items such as news, and
entertainment in the form of cartoons and various types of word
puzzles. Technical skills such as punctuation, revision, editing, and
proofreading were also reviewed. The finished pieces were compiled
into a news bulletin, an attractive item which was usually well
received and very popular with the participants and their
communities.

None of the workshop
topics proved to be culturally or linguistically neutral. For
example, instruction about good writing in English often focuses on
conciseness, concrete language, and the use of active verbs. In
African languages, ideophones are a central part of descriptive
language, although in English they are often associated with cartoons
and children’s stories. What makes good writing in previously
unwritten or little written languages is something the writers and
their communities need to determine. The transition from oral
communication to the development of a written style is a process that
takes time. Participants would sometimes grapple with whether
something they said orally should be written the same way. This
question arose in discussing matters such as sensibilities,
appropriateness, and casual expressions such as slang.

The first efforts at
facilitating different types of writing lacked the cultural relevance
of a learner-centered focus. For example, the presentation explaining
procedural writing originally emphasized a main thesis with
supporting points and a conclusion. This was revised to include
discussions on how they persuade people in their language and
culture, what issues might typically be topics of persuasion, and how
different forms such as stories and songs are used.

The processes of
drafting, writing, revising, editing, and proofreading also need to
be taught and implemented in culturally appropriate ways, and these
will be considered in the next section.

2.3.3 TEACHING WRITING AS A PROCESS.
Traditionally in the field of literacy much effort has focused on the
reading process, but little time and attention has been given to the
writing process. Even less effort has been given to developing a
culture of writing in newly literate indigenous language groups.
Although many researchers and educators see considerable shared
knowledge between reading and writing (Fitzgerald and Shanahan 200,
Nelson and Calfee 1998, Reuter 1993, Tierney and Shanahan 1991) it is
important to note that while the correlations between reading and
writing are positive, they are also cognitively quite separate
(Fitzgerald and Shanahan: 2000:2). In many newly literate
communities, reading and writing have been taught as if everything,
or nearly everything, that was needed for writing achievement could
be learned through reading alone. However, more studies in the area
reveal that reading and writing skills are only partially correlated
(Ehri 1997; Langer 1986; Niemi, Poskiparta, Vaurus, and Mäk
1998); therefore separate instruction and experience in each
discipline are necessary.

In
more developed countries, during the past twenty
years new attention has been given to writing instruction, as well as
to the writing process itself. No longer is the focus only on the
result of writing but rather on the event of writing. “Writing is a
process that takes place over time and which requires substantial
blocks of uninterrupted time. The role of writing should be
recognized as both functional and self-educative” (Farris 2001;
Harste, Woodward, and Burke 1984).

Pamela J. Farris, in her
text on language arts (2001), described both the skills and the steps
in the writing process (Table 1). First, the initial skill and the
initial step in the process are writer-centered: the involvement of
the writer, accessing her or his experiences and topic selection.
Second, the nature of the writing process provides a safe place to
share ideas, to get help from others, to make mistakes. Traditional
education in the empirical paradigm, and particularly traditional
writing instruction, had no room for multiple truths, or for personal
experience. Once pieces had been written, the expert corrected them,
often leaving the writers feeling bad about themselves and their
efforts. Contrary to what it might seem, writers in newly established
written languages have many doubts about their abilities and the
ability of the writing system to capture truths. The interpretive
paradigm encourages experimentation and personal experiences as
knowledge to be shared. Those ideas, once captured, are empowering.

As
an outsider to the language groups she was assisting, Yoder realized
that her concept of writing was influenced by a stereotype from her
own culture of lone writers sitting by themselves writing quietly. In
contrast, the effective drafting of material by workshop participants
having a strong oral tradition usually began with oral storytelling
or discussion. Sometimes, particularly with short pieces designed for
beginning readers, one person would serve as a scribe while the
others would dictate their ideas and suggestions. They would reread
the piece as a group, and make further suggestions and corrections
communally. However, depending on the type of workshop being held,
this deference to group work was tempered by a requirement that each
participant do his or her own written work in order to fulfill the
goal of learning how to write.

First drafts,
particularly those of longer stories and articles, would often
consist of a long stream of words, with no paragraph breaks and few
sentence breaks. At this point, perhaps because their material was
now written, some writers would consider the assignment to be
completed. Thus the first step in giving instruction about revision
and editing involved the concept that all writing can be improved,
and that completing the first draft is only the beginning of the
writer’s task.

Efforts to have the
writers create an outline or summary of main points before writing
their first draft were generally unsuccessful. It is not clear
whether this was due to an educational tradition that stressed rote
memory, or from an oral tradition of recitation. The closest
approximation to identifying main points occurred as the writers
brainstormed about topics orally, although this was never
successfully developed into the next step of creating a written
outline or list of main points. Similarly, when, in the interests of
time, participants were asked to share orally a summary of what they
had written, they usually instead presented their work in its
entirety. An exercise in which the main points of an everyday
activity are identified and listed could be one way of developing
outlining and summarizing skills.

Balancing
the need and desire to work communally was a strong cultural
sensitivity to anything that suggested public shame or embarrassment.
Correspondingly, saving face was an important cultural value. Thus,
in teaching peer editing (Figure 2), the proper interpersonal climate
and attitude were stressed. Emphasis was placed on culturally
appropriate ways to offer constructive criticism, stressing respect
and the inclusion of positive comments.

The editing process was
presented as a positive safeguard: first the writers would have the
opportunity to revise their material by themselves, based on the
instruction and examples they had been given on topics such as
revision, editing, punctuation, paragraph breaks, spelling, and
proofreading. Then, the work would either be reviewed and edited by
another individual, or by a small working group. All of these steps
resulted in a higher quality product, and helped to protect the
writers from receiving embarrassing public criticism when their work
was finally presented to the community.

The
model followed in these workshops is very similar to the writing
process model described in Figure 3. For new writers of indigenous
languages, the use of this model in a nonformal writers’ workshop
or in a classroom setting has resulted in writers who have produced
meaningful texts and who have felt free to share their work with
others. Although it could be argued that the recursive nature of this
model is weak, it still suggests a process that helps the new writer
to expect and accept changes suggested by others, to discover
alternative meanings in their text, or to use natural, but perhaps
more complex grammatical forms. In Yoder’s experience, as noted
above, the organizational activities described in step five were
usually not written, but part of an oral discussion, as participants
brainstormed and shared ideas.

A major drawback for
indigenous writers using the process model can also be considered a
strong point. While the process model was designed for daily or
extended implementation, most indigenous new writers have limited and
sporadic periods of writing. However, the process model, once
learned, can be used without an “outside” authority figure to
check and approve the product and process.

3. THE WRITERS’ WORKSHOP IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA: FORMING ORTHOGRAPHIES AND TRAINING WRITERS.

3.1 BACKGROUND.
With 820 living languages and 10 extinct languages, Papua New Guinea
is the most linguistically diverse country in the world (Gordon
2005). One unique sociolinguistic feature is that no indigenous
language group is politically dominant over the others. The largest
language group, Enga, has 162,000 speakers. English is the official
language of the country, and there are two lingua francas, Tok Pisin
and Hiri Motu. Tok Pisin is the predominant of the two, and is also
known as Melanesian English or New Guinea Pidgin English, although it
actually is a creole language (Gordon 2005). The number of
first-language speakers of Tok Pisin is increasing with each
generation, and it is spreading rapidly throughout the country. It
has become the language of default in nonformal literacy programs,
and also in formal bilingual education programs if no indigenous
orthography exists, or if little or no indigenous literature is
available in a language.

The passing of the
Education (Amendment) Act in 1995 meant that from that date forward
indigenous languages were to be used as the initial medium of
instruction, followed by bilingual instruction with English. The
first three grades of elementary (preparatory-kindergarten, grade 1,
grade 2) are to be taught in the indigenous languages, and the lower
three grades of primary (grades 3–5) are to adopt a bilingual
approach, gradually increasing the amount of English used as the
medium of instruction. The upper three grades of primary, grades 6–9,
include time for language maintenance. The elementary schools have
been identified as the backbone of the education reform: “Elementary
schools are to be the focal point of all of the education reform
measures because the whole educational enterprise relies on the
successful implementation of elementary education throughout the
country” (AusAID/Department of Education, Papua New Guinea 1996).

The literature on
bilingual and multilingual education stresses the importance of
orthography development; however, it refers mostly to linguistically
based orthography development (Klaus 2003, Center for Applied
Linguistics 2004, and Malone 2004). In Papua New Guinea, a number of
nongovernmental organizations involved in indigenous literacy have
worked with literacy teachers to produce orthographies. The
community-based sociolinguistic method described below is not well
known, although it has been widely used in Papua New Guinea.

3.2 COMMUNITY-BASED
ORTHOGRAPHIES: THE ALPHABET DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP.
The Papua New Guinea elementary education handbook states that a
written orthography is one of the criteria for the establishment of
indigenous language elementary schools (Department of Education,
Papua New Guinea 1997:2). No country in the world uses as many
languages for the media of instruction in elementary schools as does
Papua New Guinea: 435 indigenous languages are used in elementary
schools throughout the country (Guy 2003).

The National Department
of Education’s policy requires local elementary teachers to help
community members develop teaching materials and curricula in the
indigenous language. One avenue that has provided a way for these
groups to work together is the Alphabet Design Workshops. The
community-based sociolinguistic approach to orthography development
that is used in these workshops involves a group consensus
decision-making process that is culturally familiar to Papua New
Guineans.

From 1999 to 2002,
SIL-PNG held an orthography-development subcontract under the
Elementary Teacher’s Education Support Project of the National
Department of Education. Forty-seven Alphabet Development Workshops,
with a total of 825 participants, were held to fulfill this
subcontract. While sixty-eight languages were officially
subcontracted, SIL submitted 103 orthographies (Kale and Marimyas
2003), although that number does not necessarily represent separate
or new languages. The number of workshops held during this time made
it possible for this method to be evaluated and refined in a variety
of contexts (Easton 2003).

Some of the
orthographies assigned were from linguistically related and defined
dialects. Others were part of a dialect chain and needed further
analysis to determine the differences between languages and dialects,
and the number of orthographies that would be needed to represent
them adequately. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss what
constitutes a language, a dialect, or a variety (as in the case of
Quechua throughout the Andean mountains of South America).

The Alphabet Design
Workshop method follows a cyclic pattern of writing and reading in
the language being developed, identifying problem areas, discussing
options, making decisions, providing feedback, and evaluating
decisions. These activities occur concurrently, and at any point in
the process, revisiting one of the elements in the pattern may be
necessary. Story writing and read-alouds become the basis for
discovering the sounds of the language, and of identifying which
sounds writers find difficult to write.

Those listening to the
second read-aloud have several tasks. They are to notice hesitations,
stumblings, omissions, and repetitions. Such miscues may represent
letters and sounds that are difficult to represent and will need to
be discussed. Listeners are to note whether the writer succeeded in
involving the reader as the story is read. If the answer is yes, then
it is considered a good story. And finally, they are to notice their
own and others’ responses and reactions, because those may help
identify what makes a good story in that language.

At this point in the
workshop SIL members offer options based upon linguistic research and
orthographies of related and neighboring languages, and present
rationales for each option. Through consensus decision-making, the
participants choose between the options and decide how to write all
sounds in their language. One of the biggest challenges of the
consensus decision-making process is the presence of more than one
dialect.

Materials
production is an essential part of an Alphabet Design Workshop. Each
of the language groups present decides upon a trial orthography,
writes up a directed word list (Figure 4), and produces a spelling
guide (Figure 5). The spelling guide is more than a simple list, for
it includes the trial orthography, spelling rules, indigenous stories
with translations into English or Tok Pisin, and the beginnings of a
word list.

Toward the end of the
workshop a group discussion is held on how to test the trial
orthography. Some workshops are strategically located so that
participants can travel home for the weekend to obtain comments on
the trial orthography. After they return, participants share the
results in a group discussion. They also determine what further
follow-up and evaluation are needed when they return home after the
workshop finishes. One possible action is to distribute the spelling
guide and stories to community members who were not present for the
workshop. The tasks of evaluation include noting the following:
fluency of reading, acceptance of the story, and the letters causing
difficulties.

Elementary teachers
present during the workshop are encouraged to use the stories in
their elementary classes. The teacher reads to the children even if
they have not yet learned to read the stories for themselves. They
are encouraged to hold other village writers’ workshops and see how
other community members write stories in the language. They can hold
orthography meetings and discuss what the participants decided at the
Alphabet Design Workshop, and receive feedback from other language
speakers. It is important to stress to the Alphabet Design Workshop
participants that orthography development is a process; the workshop
is only the beginning of that process.

3.3 INDIGENOUS WRITERS’ WORKSHOPS IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA.
Many indigenous writers’ workshops have resulted from a centralized
training course, the National Literacy Course which was held at
Ukarumpa, Eastern Highlands Province, from 1983 to 1987 (Wroge 1989).
Others arose from the assistance of literacy workers and linguists.
When a writers’ workshop is designed with and for the community,
members of the community can become involved in modifying the
curriculum that is used in adult literacy classes, nonformal classes
for children, or as part of the elementary classes taught in the
local languages, which is part of Papua New Guinea’s bilingual
education system. The local stories, legends, songs, and poems
produced by the writers make it possible for the local culture to be
reflected in formal curriculum.

A one-week writers’
course held in 1989 for thirteen speakers of the Chuave language is
one example of the many indigenous writers’ workshops that have
been held in Papua New Guinea in recent decades (Wroge 1990). It was
led by the Chuave SIL translation/linguist team and an invited SIL
literacy specialist. The Chuave people number 23,107 and live in the
Chuave District of Chimbu Province. The workshop had four goals: (1)
to produce indigenous literature, (2) to encourage those able to
write in a second language to become writers of their own language,
(3) to test the proposed orthography, and (4) to provide more
literature to improve fluency in their reading clubs’ activities.

The participants
practiced the process of story writing, which included creative
writing, guided topical writing, editing, and illustrating. Their
efforts resulted in a book of twenty-six indigenous stories, produced
using a silkscreen printer. The book covered topics such as bush
animals, traveling, trips to the bush, ancestral fighting, bride
prices, and traditional stories. The highlands cultures of Papua New
Guinea are patriarchal and patrilineal; therefore, some younger men
sat down with elderly men and wrote down their stories. This was a
culturally accepted means to record in writing the group’s oral
traditions. In Papua New Guinea’s traditional societies, oral story
telling is a Melanesian way of passing on important information.
Traditionally, the only means of passing on a clan’s history or a
culture’s mores and values has been oral. If oral traditions of the
elderly are recorded, they will not be lost.

4. IMPLICATIONS.

4.1 INDIGENOUS WRITERS’ WORKSHOPS: A STRATEGY FOR COUNTERING WRITING FAILURE?
Written expression is a difficult skill to teach, because it is the most
complex form of communication. In a globalized society the written
form is important throughout every aspect of people’s lives, but
somewhere along the way, many learn to detest writing (Alber and
Marchisan 2001). Lucy Caulkins , dedicated to developing writers in
the formal system, suggested that teachers actually “stifle the
natural and enduring reasons for writing” (1986:4). This is
particularly true for individuals who are writing in a second
language, or whose work is analyzed for grammar and structure and not
for content. Alber and Marchisan proposed that “once the cycle of
writing failure sets in, teachers who deal with resistant writers
begin to resist teaching writing” (p. 4).

This leaves us with a
rather dark picture for developing writers in any language, and
darker yet for many speakers of indigenous languages, who must learn
to write in a language they do not know well, or in one that has
social stigmas. In contrast, learner-centered workshops within the
atmosphere of a program that promotes the use and development of an
indigenous language may provide a positive alternative. Drawing from
their experience and knowledge, those previously resistant to writing
may discover a new motivation and empowerment as their individual and
collective voices use the language they know best.

4.2 UNANSWERED QUESTIONS. Workshops
are often easily funded, and thus can be an attractive activity for
those working with indigenous languages. On the positive side, they
can foster momentum for language development and literacy programs.
Much enthusiasm is often expressed for the finished product,
particularly if little or nothing has previously been produced in
that language. However, this congratulatory atmosphere, which is
often prevalent at a workshop’s closing ceremony, may cause harder
questions to be overlooked or ignored.

These questions include:
What happens to the workshop products? Will the materials be
reviewed, and will those receiving a favorable review be revised and
published for greater distribution? Are there readers who can and
want to read these materials? What will the writers do with their
newly acquired skills and knowledge? Will they have the desire to
continue writing, and are their outlets and opportunities available,
such as a community news bulletin, a demand for further books and
materials, or an ongoing writers group? How will future materials be
funded and produced?

Many such questions need
to be answered, and many ethnographies need to be done on writing
within indigenous cultures, and on the value of certain types of
workshops for indigenous writers. Descriptive reports and case
studies are not enough. Rather, qualitative and quantitative studies,
both longitudinal and latitudinal, are needed to assess what impact
writers’ training has had on writers and their communities, and on
issues related to language vitality and loss.

Do some cultural groups
respond better than others to workshops? Where have writers’
workshops actually taken place? How do the participants feel about
their language and the use of writing? Have any writers’ workshops
taken place with no outside involvement? Where do writers’
workshops fit in the literacy practices of the community (Street
1995)? Is it necessary to wait until totally indigenous publications
exist (mimeographed or four colors) to know that the written language
has taken hold? What concepts and meaning are brought to writers’
workshops (by all participants) and what factors (prestige, money,
desired communication) actually gives meaning to the workshop events
(Heath 1983)?

Have writers’
workshops been successful in every culture? Early efforts in Peru
found new writers working hard on texts, enjoying the discussion,
revision, and even the silk-screening or the inky mimeograph. When it
came time to share the published work, however, they were very
uncomfortable, since their highly egalitarian culture made it
difficult to promote their own individual efforts. No one wanted to
be seen as an author—as someone in the limelight. What we had
thought would give satisfaction did not. What part of writing, in
fact, can make a community feel more powerful? Have its members found
new ways to use their language in the home? Are the children learning
the language?

Just
as there is a need to research the impact and effectiveness of
writers’ workshops, there is also a need to study other organized
efforts. Community newspapers, writers’ clubs, writers’ contests,
educational material fairs, and mentoring have all been happening
within newly literate languages. What are their positive and negative
effects on the culture, on the language? In recent times,a group of Quechua
teachers in northern Peru have made an effort to use Curriculum-based
Readers Fairs to develop both writers and materials. Are such efforts
sustainable and independent from outside politics and ideology?

Writers’ workshops
provide a way for speakers of indigenous languages to craft the
wealth of their indigenous thought and oral literature into a written
form. However, the ongoing effectiveness and value of a workshop’s
resultant skills and products cannot be divorced from a purposeful,
strategic, and holistic consideration of a community’s literacy
motivations, needs, and practices.

Kale,
Joan, and Jaking Marimyas. 2003. Implementing multilingual education
in a country with 860 languages: Challenges for the National
Department of Education in Papua New Guinea. Paper presented at the
Conference on Language Development, Language Revitalization and
Multilingual Education in Minority Communities in Asia, 6–8
November 2003, in Bangkok, Thailand. Retrieved 10 January 2005 from
http://www.sil.org/asia/ldc/parrallel_papers/kale_and_marimyas.pdf.

Klaus,
David. 2003. The use of indigenous languages in early basic education
in Papua New Guinea: A model for elsewhere? Paper presented at the
Conference on Language Development, Language Revitalization and
Multilingual Education in Minority Communities in Asia, 6–8
November 2003, in Bangkok, Thailand. Retrieved 10 January 2005 from http://www.sil.org/asia/ldc/parrallel_papers/david_klaus.pdf.

Nelson,
Nancy, and Robert C. Calfee. 1998. The reading-writing connection. In
Ninety-seventh yearbook of
the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II,
1–52. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.